do i take pics in tiff?

raggie33

*the raggedier*
Joined
Aug 11, 2003
Messages
13,908
i got new camera and it has a way to save pics in tiff but there hugeeeeeeeeeeee id guess like 100 megs per pic is it better then jpeg or other stuff|?
 

jtice

Flashaholic
Joined
May 21, 2003
Messages
6,331
Location
West Virginia
Theres really NO need for YOU to save those in tiff.

Only professionals use that in high end stuff, I dont even really know why they have that as in option on lower end cams.

I use jpeg format, and use ACDSee to compress them.

My pics go from about 1.2 meg to about 350K and look EXACTLY the same.
 

bobisculous

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 12, 2004
Messages
1,004
Location
H-Town, 29.756641, -95.355320
Yea, as jtice said, there is no need for you and tiff raggie. They are totally uncompressed pictures. I have taken some outstanding pictures with, shall I say our, camera ;-) I am ultra happy you got a new camera so you can take shots of lights and the like. And I still thank your for selling me your old one. I have gotten some INCREDIBLE pictures with it.

Cameron
 

Eugene

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 29, 2003
Messages
1,190
If you plan on editing the pic a lot then tiff if what you want to use to prevent compression loss (jpg is a lossy compression)
 

Leeoniya

Enlightened
Joined
Sep 27, 2002
Messages
376
Location
Northbrook, IL
jtice, in a complex JPEG, you will see a lot of loss going from 1.2MB to 350KB. the point is that an 1024x768 pixel image compressed to 400KB will look VERY good on the screen and is a good amount of overkill for anything you will want to post. however...that same image, printed at say...600DPI, which is not much all things considred, will only be 1.28" x 1.7" in size when printed at good detail levels.

lesson: in print you can actually see a difference in higher resolutions because given a variable "dots per inch to print" you can control detail levels by taking high res images. on screen all that higher resolutions give you are very large pictures cause your screen will always display 72 DPI, or 96 DPI if you have one of those.

JPEG compression gives nasty artifacts, and considering a a very very low compression level will give you superb detail and almost no artifacts at 1024x768 and 400k. JPEG is the way to go, but overcompression to save space for something thats not being printed is a waste of time.
 

geepondy

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 15, 2001
Messages
4,896
Location
Massachusetts
From what I've seen in most digital camera reviews, it's pretty difficult to discern much if any difference between tif and the highest quality jpg setting. Now if the the camera does RAW then that's a whole other ballgame as you have much more flexibility with after image processing.
 

Lynx_Arc

Flashaholic
Joined
Oct 1, 2004
Messages
11,212
Location
Tulsa,OK
I have found that if you keep losses down below 15% in JPG files I cannot tell the difference on most pictures and it drops size (bytes) down to about 1/5-1/10 the original. I have very few no JPG pictures, GIF is good for some pictures with text and animation in them but otherwise JPG is the best.
 

Leeoniya

Enlightened
Joined
Sep 27, 2002
Messages
376
Location
Northbrook, IL
I usually use level 10 quality in Photoshop for compression. 12 being no compression, and 1 being "compress me till everything looks interlaced and as if it's behind a faceted shower glass"

usually drops the size up to 50% with practically no artifacts. Transparent to me anyways.
 

jtice

Flashaholic
Joined
May 21, 2003
Messages
6,331
Location
West Virginia
I use 75% setting on ACDSee, and it works great.
My pics are 2400 res, 5 MP, and look GREAT after compression, i was amazed, but you really cant tell.

As far as printing,, well i admit, I never print, but I can zoom in like crazy with these 2400 res pics, i would think they would print well.
 

cratz2

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 6, 2003
Messages
3,947
Location
Central IN
I usually use level 4 in Photoshop if it's something that's going to be posted on a forum or eBay or something like that.
 

daloosh

Flashaholic*,
Joined
Jan 28, 2004
Messages
1,569
Location
New York
As geepondy sez, it's RAW that gives you a definite edge. If for nothing else, I use RAW whenever the lighting might be dodgy, because you can adjust white balance in RAW on the fly in the computer. With a JPG, you have to color correct and guess yer way thru it.

Still, getting only 100 pictures per 1GB card is a little disheartening, so be prepared to have a lot of memory if you consistently use RAW. Otherwise, shoot jpegs.

cheers,
daloosh
 
Top